As we approach the end of 2012, it's nice to look back to see how the year progressed, and this blog is no exception. After taking a look at my blog entries from 2012, I chose ten blog entries that I thought were my best (based on such factors as readership, content, and number of comments), and have thus listed them in chronological order:
1) With the fiscal cliff discussions, the current debt situation has been brought up more than once. To be able to grasp the extent to which debt is an issue is important in policy discussions, which is why back in January, I wrote this blog entry about debt and Paul Krugman's misunderstanding thereof.
2) We've gone through the Internet bubble and the housing bubble. The next bubble on the horizon is the student debt bubble. When that moment happens, I'm sure there's going to be some genius who recommends that we forgive student debt. Read here to find out why that would be a bad idea.
3) I had to throw at least one religiously related blog entry on here, and I decided to include the one with the most pageviews. A recently developed Jewish practice is to include an orange on the seder plate, which primarily represents the marginalization of the LGBT community [in Jewish communities], but can also represent any other marginalized individuals. Although this blog was initiated by my frustration with a rabbi on the Religious Right, it was nevertheless a nice project to find out whether items can be added to the seder (the answer is a resounding "yes") and the extent to which one can create a new custom while staying within the Jewish framework.
4) This entry received the most pageviews in 2012. Back in June, Californians voted on Preposition 29, which would have increased the cigarette tax by a dollar. Fortunately, the initiative did not pass. My entry goes into why this specific initiative would have not worked, as well as the more general issues with sin taxes.
5) The word "sweatshop" is very emotionally charged. It seems as if given the conditions of "sweatshops," one could not possibly defend these factories. However, when you extract the emotional element from the argument, not only could one make an argument for "sweatshops", but it should lead us to the conclusion that "sweatshops", at least in the short-to-medium run, are the best option for many individuals in developing countries.
6) The sin tax on cigarettes was not the only idiotic policy that Californians attempted to pass via referendum. California was actually looking to require that labels be put on all genetically modified foods letting consumers know which foods are genetically modified. There is nothing wrong with genetically modified food and the labeling process would have been a nightmare, which is why I was glad to see another ridiculous initiative get rejected.
7) "Made in America" is one of those phrases in which many Americans think that it's better to keep jobs in America, as opposed as to sending them overseas, because it's the "patriotic thing to do." As it turns out, "outsourcing" is not a dirty word, and Americans should actually embrace the idea of more free trade.
8) Washington and Colorado were two states that were courageous and intelligent enough to pass referenda that allowed for the legalization of marijuana. I think this an idea that makes perfect sense and should be enacted by all 50 states (Read Part I and Part II).
9) For those of you who were looking to invest in France, I provide a summary of France's politics and its economy to assess the amount of credit risk of France. It's not too bad at the moment, but if they don't get their act together, it'll get worse.
10) Gun control has been a hot-button issue in light of the recent shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut. As unfortunate as these tragedies are, any call for further gun control should not be based on a small subset of gun homicides, especially when gun violence has been declining for the past twenty-plus years. Here I provide an analysis of pertinent gun control measures and see whether they can provide the solace and safety that gun control advocates claim.
I hope you enjoyed this blog in 2012, and hope you continue to enjoy it in 2013. I hope that 2013 brings you even more joy and success in your lives!
Monday, December 31, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
Is There Such a Thing as "Common Sense" Gun Reform?
Mass shootings are a tragedy. What happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School last week was even more appalling than the shooting at the movie theater in Aurora, CO last summer because the victims were primarily children, which makes it all the more morally repugnant and disdainful of an act. One of the reasons I gave myself a week to write this is because if one is to have a serious discussion on effective gun policy, not only does there need to be time to reflect, but cooler heads need to prevail if one is to discern a response that is proportionate to the frequency and magnitude of the problem [of gun violence].
Two things I would like to re-iterate from my previous blog entry on the topic that are relevant here:
1) If we have limited resources, we should prioritize by focusing on the causes of death that produce the highest death tolls. Guns do not even make the top ten list in this country (see CDC data). Causes of death such as suicides, car accidents, smoking, and cardiovascular disease, amongst others, all top homicides caused by a firearm. This is not to say that suicides, accidents, or homicides caused by firearms aren't lamentable. However, the low number of overall deaths caused gives us an idea of the relatively low magnitude of the issue.
2) Mass shootings constitute less than one percent of overall homicides. Policy should not be dictated based on a tiny subset of what is already a relatively small cause of death (i.e., gun homicides). For good policy, we cannot look at a small subset to determine overall gun policy, which begs the question of "What is the overall trend of gun violence?" Answer: Overall gun violence has been declining for over the past twenty years, and gun violence is at a thirty-year low. If the trend were upward, this would be a different conversation. Therefore, if we are to have this conversation in sincerity, we need to recognize the trend is downward. Anything short of that is folly.
I personally think this should be adequate to quell the call for more gun control. Nevertheless, I understand that many are shocked by the idea of children being murder en masse, and are still processing that. In spite of the overall downward trend of gun violence, are there "common sense" gun reforms that can be implemented without trampling the Second Amendment? Like many libertarians would, I hesitate to go down the path of even asking this question because if you "give them an inch, they'll take a mile." As an intellectual exercise, I would like to answer the question at hand and see what the consequences of implementing "common sense" gun laws would be:
Confiscation of firearms. This would be the most extreme form of gun control. Essentially, the government would come in and seize every last firearm from the populace. The government would be the sole possessor of firearms. Aside from it being an atrociously Orwellian assault on an individual's liberty, why else would this be a terrible idea? There is an issue of practicality. There are an estimated 310 million firearms in a country of approximately 315 million people. It wouldn't be impossible to enact, but it would be downright difficult. Second, there is political feasibility, which goes beyond the clout of the NRA, which is America's second largest interest group. Even after this shooting, people are still divided on the issue. Third, there is something about American gun culture that is distinct from other developed nations. Without delving into something as "American exceptionalism," there is something unique about being founded on the ideas of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In this country, the right to bear arms is as sacrosanct as freedom of speech or freedom of religion. It is an ultimate, quintessential form of freedom. Trampling that freedom goes at the core of what it societally means to be an American, as well as a free human being. Since this has not been ingrained into much of European society (or Israeli, Australian, or Japanese, for that matter), it permeates different societal and cultural norms, all of which are more resilient to surrendering one's right to bear arms. Surely, there must be "middle-ground" options between total confiscation and a completely liberalized firearms market.
Gun-free zone. People have been talking about the link between mentally unstable people and how they cause mass shootings, but there is one commonality that doesn't get talked about, and that's gun-free zones. Aside from the 2011 Tuscon shooting, all mass shootings in the past 50 years took place in gun-free zones (yes, Fort Hood was a gun-free zone). How can this be the case? When you declare a site to be "gun-free," you've disarmed law-abiding citizens. As if this were a surprise, criminals do not care about the law. Criminals think it's an added bonus that they don't have to deal with anyone law-abiding citizens that are armed because that means pulling off their crime would be that much more difficult. A gun-free zone is nothing more than a feel-good policy that makes it more convenient for the criminal.
Assault weapon ban. In all sincerity, when the term "assault weapon" is already an ambiguous term, what would this entail? The term "assault weapon" is vague because it it makes one think of automatic weapons, which means that the basis for the ban would be on appearance and not functionality. An automatic weapon is one in which it will continue to fire if one continues to hold down the trigger. These weapons have been rendered all but illegal since the 1934 National Firearms Act (i.e., they are all but impossible for a citizen to acquire). Semi-automatic guns, on the other hand, only fire once per trigger pull. Any further ban would most probably go after semi-automatics that "look scary," such as the military-style AR-15 or the SKS rifles, even thought they do not function the same way a machine gun does. They are no more lethal, shot-for-shot, than a wooden hunting rifle.
Background checks. We already have a nationalized, computerized background check system in which we prohibit certain people (e.g., fugitives, those in mental institutions) from legally acquiring guns. There is talk about closing the "private collector" loophole, which is estimated to account for forty percent of gun sales. I have some issues here with going about background checks. One is with those who use illegal, controlled substances, which means, amongst other substances, marijuana. Considering how many people try pot, I think the government needs to loosen up its laws, as well as change its definition of felon, in terms of who is a real threat to society. I also worry about what happens if the mental health angle is hyper-sensitized, which could lead to an ever-broader expansion of who is mentally fit to own a gun (e.g., you want to own a gun, therefore you're crazy). I do consider myself a classical liberal and a consequentialist libertarian, so having a background check to stop the legitimate threats (i.e., negative externalities) is what I would deem a "necessary evil." A background check will deter some, but for those hardened criminals who truly don't care about the law, they'll find a way to obtain firearms. Regardless, we do need to be diligent that any background checks enacted need to ensure that the Second Amendment is not violated.
Removing large-capacity magazines. The premise here is to remove cartridges with more than ten rounds from circulation, which supposedly reduces damage caused by mass killers. The problem with this policy is similar to Bloomberg's ban on sodas greater than 16 oz. If I want more soda, I will just buy another soda. It doesn't stop the consumption, but merely cause a slight inconvenience. The same thing with this policy. Most people don't carry guns that require large-capacity magazines. Even if you do limit them, one can just buy and carry more cartridges on their own person. And remember that criminals don't care about the law, so they can go to the underground market to acquire more.
Conclusion: There are other gun laws that I can analyze, but these are the most relevant in response to the recent mass shooting. In summation, any reasonable gun law has to target criminals instead of engendering the unintended consequence of aiding them, and must do so while making sure that the individual's right to self-defense is not adversely affected. (And to think that I have not even addressed the other half of the equation, i.e., the broken window fallacy aspect: deaths prevented by guns). With exception of intelligently addressing background checks, I find that the response of the gun control advocates will not lead to anything productive. Given the downward trend in gun violence, I hope the hype dissipates in the next couple of weeks and that the government doesn't pass any drastic legislation in response. I won't hold my breath since it wouldn't be the first time idiotic legislation is passed, and it won't be the last.
12-1-2015 Addendum: The Cato Institute released a policy analysis of "common sense" gun reform that essentially comes to the same conclusion as I did about three years ago.
6-28-2016 Addendum: The Foundation for Economic Education published an enthralling piece entitled "Why the Gun Debate Never Ends." Essentially, a) both sides are prone to bad arguments, and b) enacting good gun policy is difficult.
Two things I would like to re-iterate from my previous blog entry on the topic that are relevant here:
1) If we have limited resources, we should prioritize by focusing on the causes of death that produce the highest death tolls. Guns do not even make the top ten list in this country (see CDC data). Causes of death such as suicides, car accidents, smoking, and cardiovascular disease, amongst others, all top homicides caused by a firearm. This is not to say that suicides, accidents, or homicides caused by firearms aren't lamentable. However, the low number of overall deaths caused gives us an idea of the relatively low magnitude of the issue.
2) Mass shootings constitute less than one percent of overall homicides. Policy should not be dictated based on a tiny subset of what is already a relatively small cause of death (i.e., gun homicides). For good policy, we cannot look at a small subset to determine overall gun policy, which begs the question of "What is the overall trend of gun violence?" Answer: Overall gun violence has been declining for over the past twenty years, and gun violence is at a thirty-year low. If the trend were upward, this would be a different conversation. Therefore, if we are to have this conversation in sincerity, we need to recognize the trend is downward. Anything short of that is folly.
I personally think this should be adequate to quell the call for more gun control. Nevertheless, I understand that many are shocked by the idea of children being murder en masse, and are still processing that. In spite of the overall downward trend of gun violence, are there "common sense" gun reforms that can be implemented without trampling the Second Amendment? Like many libertarians would, I hesitate to go down the path of even asking this question because if you "give them an inch, they'll take a mile." As an intellectual exercise, I would like to answer the question at hand and see what the consequences of implementing "common sense" gun laws would be:
Confiscation of firearms. This would be the most extreme form of gun control. Essentially, the government would come in and seize every last firearm from the populace. The government would be the sole possessor of firearms. Aside from it being an atrociously Orwellian assault on an individual's liberty, why else would this be a terrible idea? There is an issue of practicality. There are an estimated 310 million firearms in a country of approximately 315 million people. It wouldn't be impossible to enact, but it would be downright difficult. Second, there is political feasibility, which goes beyond the clout of the NRA, which is America's second largest interest group. Even after this shooting, people are still divided on the issue. Third, there is something about American gun culture that is distinct from other developed nations. Without delving into something as "American exceptionalism," there is something unique about being founded on the ideas of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In this country, the right to bear arms is as sacrosanct as freedom of speech or freedom of religion. It is an ultimate, quintessential form of freedom. Trampling that freedom goes at the core of what it societally means to be an American, as well as a free human being. Since this has not been ingrained into much of European society (or Israeli, Australian, or Japanese, for that matter), it permeates different societal and cultural norms, all of which are more resilient to surrendering one's right to bear arms. Surely, there must be "middle-ground" options between total confiscation and a completely liberalized firearms market.
Gun-free zone. People have been talking about the link between mentally unstable people and how they cause mass shootings, but there is one commonality that doesn't get talked about, and that's gun-free zones. Aside from the 2011 Tuscon shooting, all mass shootings in the past 50 years took place in gun-free zones (yes, Fort Hood was a gun-free zone). How can this be the case? When you declare a site to be "gun-free," you've disarmed law-abiding citizens. As if this were a surprise, criminals do not care about the law. Criminals think it's an added bonus that they don't have to deal with anyone law-abiding citizens that are armed because that means pulling off their crime would be that much more difficult. A gun-free zone is nothing more than a feel-good policy that makes it more convenient for the criminal.
Assault weapon ban. In all sincerity, when the term "assault weapon" is already an ambiguous term, what would this entail? The term "assault weapon" is vague because it it makes one think of automatic weapons, which means that the basis for the ban would be on appearance and not functionality. An automatic weapon is one in which it will continue to fire if one continues to hold down the trigger. These weapons have been rendered all but illegal since the 1934 National Firearms Act (i.e., they are all but impossible for a citizen to acquire). Semi-automatic guns, on the other hand, only fire once per trigger pull. Any further ban would most probably go after semi-automatics that "look scary," such as the military-style AR-15 or the SKS rifles, even thought they do not function the same way a machine gun does. They are no more lethal, shot-for-shot, than a wooden hunting rifle.
Background checks. We already have a nationalized, computerized background check system in which we prohibit certain people (e.g., fugitives, those in mental institutions) from legally acquiring guns. There is talk about closing the "private collector" loophole, which is estimated to account for forty percent of gun sales. I have some issues here with going about background checks. One is with those who use illegal, controlled substances, which means, amongst other substances, marijuana. Considering how many people try pot, I think the government needs to loosen up its laws, as well as change its definition of felon, in terms of who is a real threat to society. I also worry about what happens if the mental health angle is hyper-sensitized, which could lead to an ever-broader expansion of who is mentally fit to own a gun (e.g., you want to own a gun, therefore you're crazy). I do consider myself a classical liberal and a consequentialist libertarian, so having a background check to stop the legitimate threats (i.e., negative externalities) is what I would deem a "necessary evil." A background check will deter some, but for those hardened criminals who truly don't care about the law, they'll find a way to obtain firearms. Regardless, we do need to be diligent that any background checks enacted need to ensure that the Second Amendment is not violated.
Removing large-capacity magazines. The premise here is to remove cartridges with more than ten rounds from circulation, which supposedly reduces damage caused by mass killers. The problem with this policy is similar to Bloomberg's ban on sodas greater than 16 oz. If I want more soda, I will just buy another soda. It doesn't stop the consumption, but merely cause a slight inconvenience. The same thing with this policy. Most people don't carry guns that require large-capacity magazines. Even if you do limit them, one can just buy and carry more cartridges on their own person. And remember that criminals don't care about the law, so they can go to the underground market to acquire more.
Conclusion: There are other gun laws that I can analyze, but these are the most relevant in response to the recent mass shooting. In summation, any reasonable gun law has to target criminals instead of engendering the unintended consequence of aiding them, and must do so while making sure that the individual's right to self-defense is not adversely affected. (And to think that I have not even addressed the other half of the equation, i.e., the broken window fallacy aspect: deaths prevented by guns). With exception of intelligently addressing background checks, I find that the response of the gun control advocates will not lead to anything productive. Given the downward trend in gun violence, I hope the hype dissipates in the next couple of weeks and that the government doesn't pass any drastic legislation in response. I won't hold my breath since it wouldn't be the first time idiotic legislation is passed, and it won't be the last.
12-1-2015 Addendum: The Cato Institute released a policy analysis of "common sense" gun reform that essentially comes to the same conclusion as I did about three years ago.
6-28-2016 Addendum: The Foundation for Economic Education published an enthralling piece entitled "Why the Gun Debate Never Ends." Essentially, a) both sides are prone to bad arguments, and b) enacting good gun policy is difficult.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Quantitative Easing: Third Time Is Not the Charm
The Fed is at it again. Yesterday, the Federal Reserve announced a fourth round of quantitative easing, which entails buying $45B worth of long-term Treasury securities per mensem. Apparently, the third time, which was only within the last few months, wasn't the charm. Although it's called quantitative easing, why don't I feel at ease? What is it about quantitative easing that the IMF deems it "unconventional policy?"
Under less dire circumstances, the Fed's normal recourse is to buy short-term government bonds to lower the interest rate. The idea of a lower interest rate is to encourage spending because once again, the assumption is that the issue with the economy is due to aggregate demand. The issue right now is that the interest rates are essentially zero. The interest rates have been this low for quite some time, which means that the Fed cannot lower the short-term interest rates any further. In attempts to stimulate the economy, the following takes place under quantitative easing: the Fed purchases assets (e.g., securities, bonds) from banks and other financial institutions (mostly or solely private firms) with recently issued money. Banks would then lend this new money to consumers and businesses, which would ideally motivate consumers and businesses to spend more money.
The reason why I call this "unconventional policy" is because it's a very new concept. The academics are still trying to fight this one out. It might work. It might not work. It might have a negligible effect. Either way, I'm skeptical about the Fed's success. As Alan Greenspan points out in his autobiography (p. 478), the Fed's pre-1979 track record for avoiding inflationary episodes is "not a distinguishable one." Let's also remember that the Fed was unable to foresee the Internet bubble or the housing bubble. Why extend the powers of an entity that historically has been problematic at controlling inflation?
But I also have to look at results of the previous three rounds of quantitative easing. When is the quantitative easing supposed to end? The Fed doesn't know. If the markets keep doing poorly, those in markets will have to keep guessing what the Fed will do next before each FOMC meeting, which breeds more uncertainty while creating additional distortions of market signals (e.g., price-gouging laws) [in the credit market], and yes, disincentivizing saving, as well as punishing those who save. If job growth improves, the Fed has not provided any reliable indication of when it will stop with quantitative easing.
And then there's the matter of economic indicators themselves. I know that job growth isn't linear, but if we continue at this average rate of employment growth, we won't close the pre-recession jobs gap for another 11 years, and this is without taking U-6 unemployment into account. GDP growth is not all that inspiring. Consumer confidence is still low. Assuming this is a recovery, it's a pretty stagnant one. If we take this scenario to mean that it's not working, then all we have done is have more dollar bills than we would have otherwise, which would devalue the dollar. Devaluation doesn't only affect other countries that use the dollar as currency (e.g., Ecuador) or countries that have their currency pegged to the dollar (e.g., Saudi Arabia). It has a ripple effect in the global markets, as well.
Let's assume that quantitative easing does end up working by expanding the monetary base (note that this doesn't expand M2, which is a necessity for GDP growth) and translates into the growth of the money supply and consumer spending. And let's assume that it's doing its job by keeping interest rates low while decreasing unemployment. The perceived success of the stimulative effect (read: looser monetary policy) will cause expected inflation to rise. The Fed would then feel the need to keep at that pace, and before you know it, the inflation rate spirals upwards, at which point we would have a repeat of the 1970s and the high inflation that occurred. If that happens, then the Fed's balance sheet only increases in size, especially if there is a default on the mortgage-backed securities. Even worse, an asset bubble could pop, and given how the housing bubble burst, I don't think we want that. It would be all the more difficult to undo all the injections of those reserves if this scenario took place. This can be avoided by making sure inflation expectations don't get out of hand, but once again, skepticism ensues.
And who can forget about how the Fed ultimately decides to unload all these acquired bonds? If the Fed cannot do so adequately, the economy will have substandard economic growth for years.
Ultimately, my issue lies with the fact that the Fed has been doing everything in its power to keep [long-term] interest rates artificially low, which from a Keynesian's point of view, is supposed to be this great stimulus. This effect hasn't taken place, but even if it works, it misdiagnoses the problem. The problem is not with short-term disincentives to spend. The problems are long-term and structural. If we want to talk about handling unemployment and inflation issues at the root of their cause, we need to address such things as cutting government spending (most notably entitlement spending), deregulation, tax reform, education reform, and immigration reform, just to name a few. Whichever methods the government decides to take, one thing is for sure: cheap money is not a quick fix.
Under less dire circumstances, the Fed's normal recourse is to buy short-term government bonds to lower the interest rate. The idea of a lower interest rate is to encourage spending because once again, the assumption is that the issue with the economy is due to aggregate demand. The issue right now is that the interest rates are essentially zero. The interest rates have been this low for quite some time, which means that the Fed cannot lower the short-term interest rates any further. In attempts to stimulate the economy, the following takes place under quantitative easing: the Fed purchases assets (e.g., securities, bonds) from banks and other financial institutions (mostly or solely private firms) with recently issued money. Banks would then lend this new money to consumers and businesses, which would ideally motivate consumers and businesses to spend more money.
The reason why I call this "unconventional policy" is because it's a very new concept. The academics are still trying to fight this one out. It might work. It might not work. It might have a negligible effect. Either way, I'm skeptical about the Fed's success. As Alan Greenspan points out in his autobiography (p. 478), the Fed's pre-1979 track record for avoiding inflationary episodes is "not a distinguishable one." Let's also remember that the Fed was unable to foresee the Internet bubble or the housing bubble. Why extend the powers of an entity that historically has been problematic at controlling inflation?
But I also have to look at results of the previous three rounds of quantitative easing. When is the quantitative easing supposed to end? The Fed doesn't know. If the markets keep doing poorly, those in markets will have to keep guessing what the Fed will do next before each FOMC meeting, which breeds more uncertainty while creating additional distortions of market signals (e.g., price-gouging laws) [in the credit market], and yes, disincentivizing saving, as well as punishing those who save. If job growth improves, the Fed has not provided any reliable indication of when it will stop with quantitative easing.
And then there's the matter of economic indicators themselves. I know that job growth isn't linear, but if we continue at this average rate of employment growth, we won't close the pre-recession jobs gap for another 11 years, and this is without taking U-6 unemployment into account. GDP growth is not all that inspiring. Consumer confidence is still low. Assuming this is a recovery, it's a pretty stagnant one. If we take this scenario to mean that it's not working, then all we have done is have more dollar bills than we would have otherwise, which would devalue the dollar. Devaluation doesn't only affect other countries that use the dollar as currency (e.g., Ecuador) or countries that have their currency pegged to the dollar (e.g., Saudi Arabia). It has a ripple effect in the global markets, as well.
Let's assume that quantitative easing does end up working by expanding the monetary base (note that this doesn't expand M2, which is a necessity for GDP growth) and translates into the growth of the money supply and consumer spending. And let's assume that it's doing its job by keeping interest rates low while decreasing unemployment. The perceived success of the stimulative effect (read: looser monetary policy) will cause expected inflation to rise. The Fed would then feel the need to keep at that pace, and before you know it, the inflation rate spirals upwards, at which point we would have a repeat of the 1970s and the high inflation that occurred. If that happens, then the Fed's balance sheet only increases in size, especially if there is a default on the mortgage-backed securities. Even worse, an asset bubble could pop, and given how the housing bubble burst, I don't think we want that. It would be all the more difficult to undo all the injections of those reserves if this scenario took place. This can be avoided by making sure inflation expectations don't get out of hand, but once again, skepticism ensues.
And who can forget about how the Fed ultimately decides to unload all these acquired bonds? If the Fed cannot do so adequately, the economy will have substandard economic growth for years.
Ultimately, my issue lies with the fact that the Fed has been doing everything in its power to keep [long-term] interest rates artificially low, which from a Keynesian's point of view, is supposed to be this great stimulus. This effect hasn't taken place, but even if it works, it misdiagnoses the problem. The problem is not with short-term disincentives to spend. The problems are long-term and structural. If we want to talk about handling unemployment and inflation issues at the root of their cause, we need to address such things as cutting government spending (most notably entitlement spending), deregulation, tax reform, education reform, and immigration reform, just to name a few. Whichever methods the government decides to take, one thing is for sure: cheap money is not a quick fix.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Parsha Vayeshev: Chanukah and Dealing with Spiritual Emptiness
This week's Torah portion brings us to the story of Joseph (starting in Genesis 37). The favoritism that Jacob shows towards Joseph agitates his brothers. The chutzpah that Joseph exudes by telling the interpretation of his dreams doesn't help. One day while Joseph was out with his brothers, the brothers hit a breaking point and try to figure out how to dispose of Joseph. They initially think of murdering Joseph. However, Reuben comes up with the idea of throwing Joseph into a pit. I can come up with some nice, brief explanation of how much like Joseph, we have our high and low moments. Joseph's low moment was being hated by his brothers and sold into slavery, and how that nevertheless, he still managed to hold it together and become very successful. I am not denying the validity of such an interpretation, but would like to draw attention to Genesis 37:24, which talks about throwing Joseph into the pit:
והבור רק, אין בו מים.
"The pit was empty; there was no water in it."
When I read this, I had to ask myself an important question: If I already know that the pit was empty, why did the Torah have to repeat itself in saying that there was no water in it? Isn't that a redundancy? Also, what does this have to do with Chanukah? Chronologically speaking, Chanukah took place long after the Joseph story. To better attempt to answer these questions, we have to go to the Talmud (Shabbat 22a). The Gemara's primary focus is on the laws of lighting Chanukah candles. Out of the middle of nowhere, there is a discussion about the redundancy of mentioning that there is no water in the pit. The tangent is about as abrupt as the story of Judah and Tamar.
Nature abhors a vacuum. Pits aren't mere emptiness. The void has to be filled with something. The rabbis also realized this. To put these pits into context, they were used as water storage facilities. The pit into which Joseph was thrown into, however, was not. What was concluded in the Talmud is that there were scorpions and snakes in the pit. For a Jew, this can harken back to the simile that Torah is like water. Without the water (i.e., Torah) in a Jew's life, that lack of spirituality means that more undesirable elements take over (And for a non-Jew, that is some sort of spiritual goodness that is not the Torah). Again, it's a nice drash, but it still doesn't answer what it has to do with Chanukah.
Let's run with the rabbinic interpretation that Joseph was thrown into a pit with snakes and scorpions. Coming out of that pit unscathed would have to be defined as miraculous. As such, the connection between lighting Chanukah candles and Joseph's survival is the idea of a miracle. It was a miracle that a day's worth of oil lasted eight days, as it was a miracle that a small, rebellious, rag-tag band of Jews can defeat one of the most advanced militaries of its time in order to fight for religious freedom.
Joseph had his struggles. The Maccabees had to fight political oppression. Even in the modern world, we have our obstacles, whether internal or external, to face. The world can be a cold, dark place, much like the pit into which Joseph was casted. Although it's easier to wallow in pity and despair when [metaphorically] thrown into a pit, one of the joys of being human is that we are not confined to being victims of our circumstances: we have free will, and thus the potential to change.
As Einstein stated, "Darkness is the absence of light." The fact that Chanukah is near the darkest time of the year for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere (sorry for those in the Southern Hemisphere....Israel is still in the Northern Hemisphere, so the interpretation still applies), and I don't think that is incidental. We light the candles during this time to remind us that even during the darkest times, we still can bring light to the world, whether that is in the context of our own personal lives or in the greater global sense. It's actually nice to remind ourselves that the candle-lighting doesn't occur during the darkest time. Why? If we hit a rough patch in our lifetimes, we don't want to hit rock-bottom. If we hit rock-bottom not in the hyperbolic sense, but in the sense that we have no resources, family or friends, or way out, then there's no recourse. If we are in the recesses of darkness, we want to climb out of that pit before it gets too dark. If you reach a point where such darkness falls upon you, G-d forbid, never forget that there is still hope for spiritual ascent so that we can make our lives, as well as the world, a brighter place.
שבת שלום וחג שמח!
Monday, December 3, 2012
Extending Unemployment Benefits Is Not a Solution
The "fiscal cliff" talks are bringing a series of policy issues into play, one of them being the extension of unemployment benefits. If Congress decides to not renew unemployment benefits, it is reported that it will impact over two million citizens. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently published a report on unemployment benefits and how it would affect the economy if the benefits were extended either partially or in their entirety. The idea behind unemployment benefits is that they are supposed to temporarily help those who lost their jobs [in the recession] insure their savings and assets until they can get back on their feet and land another job. Although I am sure some people can think of me as callous for not wanting to extend these benefits because they are trying to peddle an argumentum ad misericordiam, there are a few reasons, mainly surrounded around the concepts of costs and effectiveness, that shape the foundation of my opposition.
One of the primary ideas behind unemployment benefits is that without them, it would reduce the GDP because the would-be beneficiaries would consume less. The idea, which is unsurprisingly Keynesian in nature, is the conclusion that CBO report arrives at. As long as consumption (aka aggregate demand) is boosted, then the problem is solved. But is it really? How can spending be the issue when the marginal propensity to spend was 0.98 pre-recession and only decreased to 0.94? If saving rates were high, I could at least amuse the thought, but since Americans love to spend, I cannot buy it. It's no wonder that government programs such as unemployment insurance disincentivize saving. Also, the idea of aggregate demand is one of indiscriminate spending. Not all spending, consumption, and production are created equal. Even the IMF recognizes the real possibility, and in many instances, the reality, of multiplier effects less than 1 (i.e., government spending is less effective).
If the program is so wonderful because the CBO estimates that it will create $1.10 for every dollar of input, why not extend unemployment benefits to everyone, or at least expand the program greatly? Because the CBO is only looking at half of the equation. My favorite reason for why the Keynesian thinking is flawed is the very idea behind a subsidy. As the adage goes, "If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it." What are we subsidizing? Unemployment, which means we get more of it....more on that in a moment. Second, you are taxing employers. Money does not grow from trees. Government does not have its own revenue base, hence the reason for taxation, which in this case is in the form of the payroll tax. When the government takes that money from the private sector, it dampens the private sector and causes a firm to produce less.
Although I would much prefer private donors, charities, and organizations to help with those who are temporarily unemployed, even if I were to concede to some temporary mechanism for unemployment benefits to be given by the government, they would need to be temporary. The fact that this a repeat of last year's discussion is ridiculous. Why? When you extend the benefits and make them more generous, like Congress is discussing, you decrease the incentive for an individual to look for work, which leads to structural unemployment. If you're disinclined to believe the conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation, maybe you'll take the word of Left-leaning economist Paul Krugman. After all, he was the one who gave this very explanation in his macroeconomics textbook (p. 210).
The reason why this disincentive exists is because individuals have a "reservation wage," which is the minimum wage an individual expects before accepting a job. The unemployment benefits cause the reservation wage to increase, which forces the individual to be pickier about job selection. This is not only the thinking in the CBO report (p. 9), but this also comes from Lawrence Summers, who was the former director of Obama's National Economic Council. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Bank can hardly be considered a bastion for free-market thought, but amazing how they came to the conclusion that extended unemployment benefits actually increase unemployment (also see Katz and Meyer, 1990).
There is also the issue that over ten percent of unemployment benefits were paid in error. Once again, this brings up the issue of the effects of limited competition on efficiency. If a private firm misappropriated this large percentage of their produced goods, they would either adjust for the inefficiency or they would soon go out of business. When the government misappropriates the funds, they can still survive amidst the inefficiencies, which is unfortunate if the goal is to help people out, but over $5B has been misapplied. If that tax revenue were not collected via the payroll tax, employers could have used that extra money to create more jobs. Is it fair for working citizens to pay for a system that is ripe with abuse and fraud?
Unemployment insurance is more of the same "tax and spend" mentality that Washington has in mind. It does nothing to mitigate the wage rigidities, the misallocation of funds, or the fact that it de facto subsidizes unemployment. Interest rates are at extreme lows and consumption is still high, so to continue with this view that businesses cannot borrow or there are not any consumers out there to consume goods is false. Policy should be focused on incentivizing businesses to create more jobs and providing businesses with better confidence in the markets to hire. In broad terms, that translates into such ideas as tax reform, deregulation, and/or cutting back on government spending. Whatever solutions that Congress decides to kick around in the upcoming days, extending unemployment benefits should not be one of them.
One of the primary ideas behind unemployment benefits is that without them, it would reduce the GDP because the would-be beneficiaries would consume less. The idea, which is unsurprisingly Keynesian in nature, is the conclusion that CBO report arrives at. As long as consumption (aka aggregate demand) is boosted, then the problem is solved. But is it really? How can spending be the issue when the marginal propensity to spend was 0.98 pre-recession and only decreased to 0.94? If saving rates were high, I could at least amuse the thought, but since Americans love to spend, I cannot buy it. It's no wonder that government programs such as unemployment insurance disincentivize saving. Also, the idea of aggregate demand is one of indiscriminate spending. Not all spending, consumption, and production are created equal. Even the IMF recognizes the real possibility, and in many instances, the reality, of multiplier effects less than 1 (i.e., government spending is less effective).
If the program is so wonderful because the CBO estimates that it will create $1.10 for every dollar of input, why not extend unemployment benefits to everyone, or at least expand the program greatly? Because the CBO is only looking at half of the equation. My favorite reason for why the Keynesian thinking is flawed is the very idea behind a subsidy. As the adage goes, "If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it." What are we subsidizing? Unemployment, which means we get more of it....more on that in a moment. Second, you are taxing employers. Money does not grow from trees. Government does not have its own revenue base, hence the reason for taxation, which in this case is in the form of the payroll tax. When the government takes that money from the private sector, it dampens the private sector and causes a firm to produce less.
Although I would much prefer private donors, charities, and organizations to help with those who are temporarily unemployed, even if I were to concede to some temporary mechanism for unemployment benefits to be given by the government, they would need to be temporary. The fact that this a repeat of last year's discussion is ridiculous. Why? When you extend the benefits and make them more generous, like Congress is discussing, you decrease the incentive for an individual to look for work, which leads to structural unemployment. If you're disinclined to believe the conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation, maybe you'll take the word of Left-leaning economist Paul Krugman. After all, he was the one who gave this very explanation in his macroeconomics textbook (p. 210).
The reason why this disincentive exists is because individuals have a "reservation wage," which is the minimum wage an individual expects before accepting a job. The unemployment benefits cause the reservation wage to increase, which forces the individual to be pickier about job selection. This is not only the thinking in the CBO report (p. 9), but this also comes from Lawrence Summers, who was the former director of Obama's National Economic Council. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Bank can hardly be considered a bastion for free-market thought, but amazing how they came to the conclusion that extended unemployment benefits actually increase unemployment (also see Katz and Meyer, 1990).
There is also the issue that over ten percent of unemployment benefits were paid in error. Once again, this brings up the issue of the effects of limited competition on efficiency. If a private firm misappropriated this large percentage of their produced goods, they would either adjust for the inefficiency or they would soon go out of business. When the government misappropriates the funds, they can still survive amidst the inefficiencies, which is unfortunate if the goal is to help people out, but over $5B has been misapplied. If that tax revenue were not collected via the payroll tax, employers could have used that extra money to create more jobs. Is it fair for working citizens to pay for a system that is ripe with abuse and fraud?
Unemployment insurance is more of the same "tax and spend" mentality that Washington has in mind. It does nothing to mitigate the wage rigidities, the misallocation of funds, or the fact that it de facto subsidizes unemployment. Interest rates are at extreme lows and consumption is still high, so to continue with this view that businesses cannot borrow or there are not any consumers out there to consume goods is false. Policy should be focused on incentivizing businesses to create more jobs and providing businesses with better confidence in the markets to hire. In broad terms, that translates into such ideas as tax reform, deregulation, and/or cutting back on government spending. Whatever solutions that Congress decides to kick around in the upcoming days, extending unemployment benefits should not be one of them.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Shabbat 54b: Judaism Isn't an Opiate of the Masses
"Opiate of the masses." That is what Karl Marx famously called religion. Religion leads to passivity because at least from what Marx could observe, people accept the way things happen as "G-d's will." "Why help out others when this what G-d wishes to be?" Judaism outright rejects that premise, and today's Daf Yomi portion, Shabbat 54 is a friendly reminder of that fact:
כל מי שאפשר למחות לאנשי ביתו ולא מיחה נתפס על אנשי ביתו באנשי עירו נתפס על אנשי עירו בכל העולם כולו נתפס על כל העולם כולו
Anyone who had the capability to effectively protest the sinful conduct of the members of his household and did not protest, he himself is apprehended for the sins of the members of his household and punished. If he is in a position to protest the sinful conduct of the people of his town, and he fails to do so, he is apprehended for hte sins of the people of his town. If he is in a position to protest the sinful conduct of the whole world and fails to do so, he is is apprehended for the sins of the whole world.
At this point, this blog entry more about preliminary thoughts than anything else. First is the continuing dichotomy between individualism and communitarianism in Jewish thought, which is something with which I struggled during this past Yom Kippur. There is plenty that Judaism has to say about individual sin. However, Judaism goes beyond regulating individuals in a politically libertarian manner. What this Talmud portion is saying is that we are also responsible for those around us. We're meant to do mitzvot such as give tzedakah and perform acts of loving-kindness (גמילות חסדים). Although the Talmudic sages do not cite any Biblical verses for this parable, my educated guess is that Leviticus 19:16, the verse about standing idly by the blood of your neighbor, would come into play.
For being written about two millennia ago, I am surprised as to how global the thinking was. The first thing is the hierarchy presented here: home, town, and then the world. Given the complexities of globalization, I would expect a more nuanced hierarchy, but the idea is to help those closest to you and expand your assistance from there. I am impressed that Chazal makes a call for helping on a global level.
I think the repetition of "if he is in a position" is important because it's a conditional clause. To what extent are you obligated to help in avoiding sin? Globalization is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, we can relay information faster than ever. On the other hand, we receive too much information, and thus become all too easily aware of the plethora of problems that plague this world. Does that give us an out? Nope! As Pirkei Avot 2:16 states, just because we are not meant to finish our task does not mean that we desist from it. We need to pick causes that are within in our sphere of influence, and if they are not within our sphere of influence, we try to bring it within that fold. It is difficult to choose causes and figure out how to best help out. I hope to find a way to prioritize it all and actualize. But I do know one thing: Judaism teaches us that life is not a spectator sport. We are meant to be active participants in the game called "life" until it's over.
כל מי שאפשר למחות לאנשי ביתו ולא מיחה נתפס על אנשי ביתו באנשי עירו נתפס על אנשי עירו בכל העולם כולו נתפס על כל העולם כולו
Anyone who had the capability to effectively protest the sinful conduct of the members of his household and did not protest, he himself is apprehended for the sins of the members of his household and punished. If he is in a position to protest the sinful conduct of the people of his town, and he fails to do so, he is apprehended for hte sins of the people of his town. If he is in a position to protest the sinful conduct of the whole world and fails to do so, he is is apprehended for the sins of the whole world.
At this point, this blog entry more about preliminary thoughts than anything else. First is the continuing dichotomy between individualism and communitarianism in Jewish thought, which is something with which I struggled during this past Yom Kippur. There is plenty that Judaism has to say about individual sin. However, Judaism goes beyond regulating individuals in a politically libertarian manner. What this Talmud portion is saying is that we are also responsible for those around us. We're meant to do mitzvot such as give tzedakah and perform acts of loving-kindness (גמילות חסדים). Although the Talmudic sages do not cite any Biblical verses for this parable, my educated guess is that Leviticus 19:16, the verse about standing idly by the blood of your neighbor, would come into play.
For being written about two millennia ago, I am surprised as to how global the thinking was. The first thing is the hierarchy presented here: home, town, and then the world. Given the complexities of globalization, I would expect a more nuanced hierarchy, but the idea is to help those closest to you and expand your assistance from there. I am impressed that Chazal makes a call for helping on a global level.
I think the repetition of "if he is in a position" is important because it's a conditional clause. To what extent are you obligated to help in avoiding sin? Globalization is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, we can relay information faster than ever. On the other hand, we receive too much information, and thus become all too easily aware of the plethora of problems that plague this world. Does that give us an out? Nope! As Pirkei Avot 2:16 states, just because we are not meant to finish our task does not mean that we desist from it. We need to pick causes that are within in our sphere of influence, and if they are not within our sphere of influence, we try to bring it within that fold. It is difficult to choose causes and figure out how to best help out. I hope to find a way to prioritize it all and actualize. But I do know one thing: Judaism teaches us that life is not a spectator sport. We are meant to be active participants in the game called "life" until it's over.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
The Carbon Tax: Not All It's Cracked Up to Be
I knew that policies such as tax increases and spending cuts were being discussed in the "fiscal cliff debate," but only very recently did I find out that a carbon tax was part of the debate. Why would climate change become a part of the debate? Aside from Hurricane Sandy, the answer is that politicians would expect revenue windfall to deal with fiscal woes. This led me to wonder whether the carbon tax would be effective.
The carbon tax is a Pigovian tax levied on the amount of carbon emitted in order to reduce carbon emissions. I have expressed skepticism about anthropogenic global warming, but over time, that position becomes harder to justify, so for the purpose of this blog entry, the assumption made is that man-made global warming is real and needs to be addressed.
As shown in the graph below, the idea is that the free market encourages individuals to produce more carbon via their energy consumption than is socially optimal. The consumer of energy is not bearing the real cost of emitting carbon into the atmosphere. The carbon tax raises the price of consuming carbon-based energy so that the consumer faces the full social costs. In addition to addressing and discouraging a negative externality, the idea is to incentivize investment in alternative energy, which would not only be great for the environment, but would help with long-term energy concerns. There is also the previously mentioned benefit of collecting revenue for the government. Arguably, one can contend that the carbon tax is simpler, more effective, less corruptible, and more transparent than cap-and-trade (that debate can be explored here and here). Voilà, the argument for a carbon tax in a nutshell.
As lovely as all of that sounds, I have my reservations about a carbon tax for a few reasons:
10-30-2014 Addendum: This study from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute looks at the carbon tax, particularly from the point of view of the tax interaction effect.
1-12-2014 Addendum: The Heritage Foundation recently put out a piece on why carbon taxes aren't a good idea. Worth the read.
The carbon tax is a Pigovian tax levied on the amount of carbon emitted in order to reduce carbon emissions. I have expressed skepticism about anthropogenic global warming, but over time, that position becomes harder to justify, so for the purpose of this blog entry, the assumption made is that man-made global warming is real and needs to be addressed.
As shown in the graph below, the idea is that the free market encourages individuals to produce more carbon via their energy consumption than is socially optimal. The consumer of energy is not bearing the real cost of emitting carbon into the atmosphere. The carbon tax raises the price of consuming carbon-based energy so that the consumer faces the full social costs. In addition to addressing and discouraging a negative externality, the idea is to incentivize investment in alternative energy, which would not only be great for the environment, but would help with long-term energy concerns. There is also the previously mentioned benefit of collecting revenue for the government. Arguably, one can contend that the carbon tax is simpler, more effective, less corruptible, and more transparent than cap-and-trade (that debate can be explored here and here). Voilà, the argument for a carbon tax in a nutshell.
As lovely as all of that sounds, I have my reservations about a carbon tax for a few reasons:
- Other effects of taxation. What is implicit within taxing carbon emissions is that factors of production (e.g., labor, capital, and investment) are also being taxed because energy is an input of production. Much like consumers, a majority of producer behavior can be attributed to incentive structure. Much like with protectionism, the carbon tax can either discourage work and investment in this country, or the tax can incentivize companies to outsource to countries with less regulations and taxes, both of which would slow down economic growth. A decrease in GDP growth would not be good for the economy, but cutting back on consumption might not necessarily be a bad thing, so there's a trade-off. Something else to consider is the issue of the tax-interaction effect, which is elucidated upon by economist Robert P. Murphy.
- Offsetting costs and revenue neutrality. My objections in the first point can mitigated by offsets by the revenue collected via "pro-growth" policies. Revenues can be used to deal with the debt or they can be used for other public funding. Additionally, the carbon tax can be revenue-neutral, meaning that a carbon can be offset by decreasing [or eliminating] other taxes, such as the corporate tax or the income tax. A revenue-neutral carbon tax is something that conservatives are even willing to get behind. It's all picture-perfect until you run into political reality. This assumes that tax revenue will be adequately appropriated and will not be caught up in politics like other tax revenue. Also, I had similar apprehensions about the prospectives of the value-added tax being revenue-neutral. Especially during a fiscal cliff debate, what is the probability that the government is going to consider cutting taxes to the point where the carbon tax would be revenue-neutral? We have to fund a welfare state with increasing entitlements, so I would safely bet that those odds are low.
- Regulations and expansion of Big Government. Without the carbon tax, the government's next option would be to use the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon. Considering how micromanaging this bill is, effectiveness is in question. The carbon tax would simplify the process. Rather than a plethora of regulations, the carbon tax would directly address carbon emissions without the EPA's involvement. Much like with the second point, my issue here is that the carbon tax would not be in lieu of the EPA, but rather in addition to EPA involvement. Carbon is emitted by oil, coal, and natural gas consumption. Since these three energy sources consist of approximately 83% of energy consumption, it gives the government a carte blanche to regulate many facets of American's lives, which is very disconcerting.
- Elasticities and Deadweight Loss. One of the advantages of the markets is that prices are reflections of supply and demand. This means that the mechanisms in the market can determine a consumer's willingness to pay (WTP), as well as the value of inputs and outputs. When the government levies a Pigovian tax, it has no way of knowing the external cost of carbon (i.e., value of the output) and how much it should tax. For all the government knows, it is overvaluing the emission of a ton of carbon if it taxes too high. Another issue with potentially taxing too high is with respect to elasticity of demand. This is important if your primary goal of the carbon tax is to cut back on carbon emission. If a good is inelastic, such as gasoline, the consumer will be relatively unresponsive to an increase in price, which means that it would take a substantial tax burden to get the desired effect. If the government keeps raising taxes with little change in carbon emissions, not only has the government angered its citizenry, but it also has done very little to cut back on carbon. In addition, both the Brookings Institution and Heritage Foundation express concern for deadweight loss, which means that the inefficiencies and the distortions in the carbon tax are larger than in other taxes.
- Regressiveness of the carbon tax. A carbon tax is a flat tax in the sense that it taxes at a constant marginal rate. However, because the poor spend a higher percentage of its income on such goods as utilities and transportation than the rich do, it has a regressive effect on the poor. This will be compounded by the notion that in all probability, businesses will just pass the cost of carbon onto its customers, meaning that it would not even directly affect the producers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recognizes this and has suggested some policies to keep the overall tax burden progressive. Like our current taxation system, I would expect a bunch of exemptions and loopholes to exacerbate the issues of overburden and inefficiencies that arise.
- Free rider effect. It has been called global warming for a reason. The spillover effects of carbon emissions affect the entire world. Therefore, the big emitters have to be on board. If developing countries such as China or India are more concerned with economic development (read: increased carbon emissions) than they are with fighting climate change, it is more challenging, if not downright impossible, of a task. Plus, America has been cutting back on its rates of emissions to the point where the downward trend has resulted in a 20-year low.
- Effectiveness of the tax. I started to cover this idea in my fourth point. In addition to dealing with inelastic demands, there is also the question of the extent to which carbon taxes will incentivize industries to invest more in alternative energy. I don't doubt that more expensive fossil fuels will make businesses want to develop green technology faster. Much like with education, throwing money at the problem doesn't automatically solve it, which does nothing to mitigate the high costs of alternative energy in the short-to-medium-term. Although technological process does not have a linear trend, there is only so much progress that can be made. I would opine that the tax doesn't necessarily help with speeding up progress. The increased incentive for industries to invest in green technology is [partially] offset by the revenue it would have acquired had it not been taxed. The carbon tax revenue would help with research and development (R&D) only if the government decides to a) appropriate it to R&D, and b) if the government doesn't get caught up in its inherent efficiencies (better known as government failures).
10-30-2014 Addendum: This study from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute looks at the carbon tax, particularly from the point of view of the tax interaction effect.
1-12-2014 Addendum: The Heritage Foundation recently put out a piece on why carbon taxes aren't a good idea. Worth the read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)